Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:36, 30 January 2006

Archive of old comments

Neutral POV violations

The above is essentially an argument for what is occurring constantly on this page, which is the removal of material, such as recent comments by officials of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and NASD, that are adverse to the "anti-naked-shorting" point of view. This constant vandalism needs to be addressed.--Mantanmoreland 19:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have put in a request for semi-protection of the page, which will prevent anonymous editors from reverting to their POV-laden version. There appear to be several IP addresses reverting to this version over the past 2 days, either recruited from outside or a single user with a dynamic address. (ESkog) 20:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Page Protection - discussion of dispute

I believe that the current version of the page is preferable to the version which has been re-dumped in by anonymous editors several times over the past few days. Their version appears to suffer from a great deal of WP:NPOV violations and does not present the information in a fair way at all - the thesis appears to be "Naked short selling is bad" which is never something we want to see in a Misplaced Pages article. As with Hitler, it is better to present the facts and allow the reader to discover that this adds up to a bad thing if that is indeed the case. I invite any of our anonymous doppelgangers to engage in the discussion here to try to come up with a consensus regarding this page. (ESkog) 22:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree and see no problem whatseover with the current version, which presents a balanced POV and is not a one-sided rant such as has been repeatedly dumped by the anonymous editors.--Mantanmoreland 22:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'll leave a note on all of the anon talk pages who have contributed their version in the last 24 hours or so that they should come participate in this discussion. (ESkog) 22:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree very emphatically. There does need to be a title 'Naked Short Selling' (only because that's the accepted name for the practice) and it needs to be completely rewritten. There is NO balance whatsoever with the current version. It's a one-sided piece that presents naked short selling from the viewpoint of those engaged in the 'illegal' practice. User:Mantanmoreland et al are doing all they can to suppress the fact the the problem exists, calling it a figment of imagination or a valid counter to a pump and dump. Sorry; but train robbery did occur, and it was not a valid counter to the way the railroads were run. If you think naked shorting doesn't happen, and that shares are never sold and not delivered, try out for size http://www.rgm.com/shortselling.html. If you want a more recognizable link, try http://www.time.com/time/insidebiz/article/0,9171,1126706,00.html titled "HOW HEDGE FUNDS TIED TO EMBATTLED BROKER REFCO USED "NAKED SHORT SELLING" TO PLUNDER SMALL COMPANIES". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.96.70.230 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Please comment on specific places in the current article where we can improve. I don't see it as a one-sided piece at all and am curious as to your point of view. (ESkog) 01:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a significant (and so far very productive!) discussion of the page protection taking place at my talk page and User talk:Riverrunrun. Other interested parties may chime in here or there. (ESkog) 02:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a back and forth over personalities, except to say that I'm not trying to "suppress any facts" and I don't think the other editors were trying to do so either. I don't think this kind of comment personally attacking and questioning motives contributes to the discussion. --Mantanmoreland 03:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. I think you'll find we've moved past/around that. (ESkog) 03:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh (sound of head smacking forward) yes I see. I thought that was a discussion of a different dispute.--Mantanmoreland 03:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

May I make one suggestion, however? Might it be possible to have one central place for discussion of this issue? This dispersal of the subject is confusing, at least to the easily confused such as me. --Mantanmoreland 03:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the current version minimizes the "naked shorting is bad" argument; thus, it is not neutral. A neutral treatment would acknowledge that the SEC publishes a list of securities experiencing an abnormal number of "failures to deliver" without explanation. A neutral treatment would acknowledge that naked short selling is a well-known and well-documented means of manipulating the price of a security. It is self-evident; if you can find a broker-dealer willing to short-sell a stock without demanding a borrow, why not short-sell a stock into oblivion?

The current article is a clear violation of the Misplaced Pages Neutral Point of View policy, as it disregards the fact that naked short-selling has been used to artificially depress the price of numerous stocks, thus it should be re-written. I believe I can draft a balanced view of the issue, if anyone is interested. The current article is too biased to serve as a starting point.

Thanks erudite

From User talk:ESkog and User talk:Riverrunrun

I am copying the conversation we have had on our user talk pages to this central location so that more people may participate in the discussion. (ESkog) 04:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Naked Short Selling (Riverrunrun)

Your "Naked Short Selling" page is definitely biased in favor of the naked short seller. It is not neutral!

I have tried to replace it with factual information to no avail. A poster named ESKOG (you?) has entered a message to me that I am in violation of the "neutral" policy of Wikopedia. Either the author is not adequately knowledgeable regarding naked short selling or he is intentionally placing untruthful and biased information on this page.

I sincerely hope that this person is not an official moderator who controls this page. If this is an example of neutrality, it is blatantly hypocritical. Please let me know how to correct erroneous and biased information on this "Naked Short Selling" page.Riverrunrun 00:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply (ESkog)

First, please keep in mind that we can't have a conversation if your username/IP changes every time you edit. If you could stick to this username for the duration, that would be helpful.

I am not an "official moderator" of Misplaced Pages; in truth, no one really is. We are all editors trying to work together to create the best encyclopedia possible. Among our guiding principles are a neutral point of view policy and a committment to citing sources whenever possible. I, along with other editors, felt that the version you continued to reinsert was extremely biased with a thesis that "naked short selling is bad." The article is not supposed to be making such an argument; it should only be outlining what it is and a discussion of major literature surrounding the subject. The page has been protected as a result of our edit war, and you are welcome to engage in the discussion on the page's talk page. Our goal is to create a neutral version of the page that stands up to consensus.

Here are some problems I had with your version of the page:

1. "it is generally accepted... simple fraud" in the opening paragraph is clearly not true, and also uses weasel words in lieu of citing a source.
2. The word "apologists" applied to those who argue it is not illegal is a very judgmental word.
3. General phrasing - "It is difficult to argue with a straight face" - "Another canard that is floated by apologists" - "There is no controversy" - fly in the face of maintaining a neutral point of view.
4. The Argument/Fact structure used in the Controversy section is not encyclopedic in the slightest, and is more correctly structured for an argumentative essay. That is not what Misplaced Pages is about.

I hope these comments help, and feel free to engage in the discussion on the Talk:Naked short selling page. If you have any other questions about the process, my Talk page is always open. (ESkog) 00:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Counter Reply to Naked Short Selling (Riverrunrun)

Thanks for the reply. Hopefully we can have a constructive dialog with truth as the goal.

I have been investing in the stock market for over 30 years and have seen all sorts of schemes to bilk the unsuspecting small investor out of his money. I don't know how much experience you have had with such actions, but, by the tone of you comments, I would guess very little.

You have mentioned several "problems" with removed version of this page. My version attempts to rectify the inaccuracies in the protected version.

You state that this version was "extremely biased with a thesis that 'naked short selling is bad'". I suggest that you look at the SEC ACT of 1933 and 1934. Illegal Sale of an Unregistered Securty has always been forbidden, by Sections 5 and 6 of the Securities Act of 1933, and by provisions of the Securities Act of 1934. It is illegal. In light of this, how do you construe that "naked short selling is bad" is biased? It is nothing more than taking someone's money and not delivering anything in return. That's why they call it FTD (Fails To Deliver), i.e., no shares are ever delivered to the buyer. This is a crime. Crime is bad.

Using this illegal ploy, a hedge fund can, with broker complicity, sell unlimited shares on the open market and drive a target stock issue down dramatically, even to zero. I am not talking about penny stocks either. Believe me, this really is happening to the tune of billions of dollars per day of lost retail investments. Last year I lost over $500,00.00 due to this type of criminal action. The stock involved had over 200% of company issued shares being traded. Now, obiously, not all of these shares were legitimate.

This IS fraud! You say that there is no evidence of this happening. The SEC, DTC and NASD will not allow the true numbers of FTD shares to be given out. Even using the FOIA will not bring forth the numbers. Do you honestly think this is OK?

If you want to remain "neutral", then allow the current version of this page to give facts and not erroneous propaganda in favor of naked short selling. Facts are not argueable. Distortion of same is.

Since the mid 1990's, the SEC has been aware of naked short selling and failed to adequately respond to investor and company complaints alike. In recent years the FBI, SEC, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have conducted investigations into naked short selling and followed these sales through money laundering schemes used by criminal elements. Those elements jeopardize our Homeland Security. Unbelievably, the practice of naked short selling still continues to this day regardless of where the profits are going.

Brokerage firms make their money not by representing their clients, the average investor. They make their money by trading stock. It's that simple. And no one trades more stock that the hedge funds. Between the two of them, they have created some of the wealthiest individuals in America, lining their own pockets with outrageous salaries, unbelievable commissions, and massive bonuses that most Americans can only dream about. And they do it in a stock market where the average investor is still struggling to recoup even a fraction of the losses sustained in the market meltdown of 2000.

They do it by selling stock. It doesn't even matter whether that stock is real or imagined, just as long as the shares keep flowing. It doesn't matter whether the shares are delivered or not, just as long as the "customer" keeps paying the commissions for the shares that flow in a neverending stream from one hand to another. Counterfeit or real, as long as the brokerage firms collect their fees, they'll continue to buy and sell, sell and buy.

As I said previously, you are being hypocritical if you think that the wording of the protected version of this page is "neutral". It is showing the true bias or lack of knowledge of the author. This biased diatribe hurts the small investor, our economy and, by money laundering, our national security. Be informed before taking a stand on neutrality. Learn and advocate the facts. Otherwise you are definitely become part of the problem. Riverrunrun 02:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply #2 (ESkog)

Alright, I'll gladly admit that you are much more knowledgeable about this specific subject than I am. But "taking a stand for neutrality" is one of the core principles of Misplaced Pages, and it's not going away anytime soon. With good sources (which it appears you have), we can build an article that is structured in a neutral tone which still presents all the facts. See Murder for a good example of a page about a clearly defined crime - there isn't really a section where we come out and argue that murder is bad, even though we all can agree that it is. We do state why/how/where it is illegal, as well as some famous examples of it. This might be a good model for us to start building the new page. While the page is protected you could create a page such as Naked short selling/temp where we could collaborate on the wording and presentation of the information. (ESkog) 02:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Something important is missing from this article, namely the answer to the question "How is Naked short-selling different from other kinds of short-selling?" Anyone? DJ Clayworth 04:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)